The importance of the psychological
contract for effective learning in
apprenticeships
Professor Erica Smith
University of Ballarat
Arlene Walker & Ros Brennan Kemmis
What’s the psychological contract?






An implicit contract between
employer and employee.
It concerns mutual expectations and
obligations
What happens when they differ?
What happens when the contract is
breached?
Common in the Human Resource
Management literature, especially in
the recent tight labour market.
In apprenticeships and traineeships
there are extra parties eg GTOs,
AACs.
What is the Australian
apprenticeship system like?
A mature apprenticeship system embedded in VET qualifications and
employment practices (400,000 from a workforce of 12 million);
All apprentices and trainees are employed;
Allows mature entry, part-timers, secondary school based.





Low completion rates (about 50%);
Inclusion in last 20 years of shorter ‘traineeships’ in non-craft
occupations - there are twice as many trainees as apprentices;
Concerns about quality of delivery, both at college and on the job;
Poor pathways from craft and manufacturing apprenticeships to higher
education;
Group Training Organisations employ about 15% of apprentices and
trainees, acting as the formal employer and ‘leasing’ them to ‘host
employers’. Some GTOs are industry-specific and some are general.
Why is the psychological contract
of interest to us?





For an effective apprenticeship, all parties need to be
committed to the development of the apprentice - and
so they need to share similar expectations about what
training and learning is required.
The psych contract allows us a framework for
examining expectations and factors that affect ties
between employers and employees.
Australian policy-makers are interested in differences
between apprentices & trainees, and among industry
groups.
Data is needed that helps employers and intermediaries
improve retention and improve the experiences of
apprentices & trainees.
However… three to four years is a long time in
anyone’s life.
Research questions





What ‘promises’ form the basis of the psychological contract for
apprentices and trainees? To what extent are they met? Do they
vary between apprentices and trainees, among industry areas, and
by other factors?
How is the psychological contract developed and ‘remembered’
within industries and workplaces for all parties?
What impact do RTOs, GTOs and other intermediary organisations
have on the psychological contract?
What tensions arise from different perceptions of the psychological
contract and what events can lead to a breach of the contract?
How can the different stakeholders’ perceptions of the promises
involved in the psychological contract for apprentices and trainees
be better aligned?
The research method
Funded by National Centre for Vocational Education
Research, research from late 2009-late 2010.
 Interviews with 13 national stakeholders covering
10 organisations.
 Survey of a random sample of 1000 apprentices and
1000 trainees in each of Qld and Victoria. 219 directemployed responses.
 Survey of a random sample of employers of
apprentices/trainees in Qld and Vic. 262 responses.
 Additional survey to GTOs as employers in Qld & Vic
(30 responses), and to volunteer GTOs to administer to
apps/trainees (176 GTO-employed responses)
 Case studies in nine companies employing
apprentices and trainees, including two GTOs.
Overall findings





Expectations are similar to any other job, apart from very high
expectation on both sides of, respectively, training and learning and a
greater emphasis on safety. (Learning is second to attendance and punctuality for
apprentices/trainees)
There is general agreement between employers and
apprentices/trainees on the importance of obligations.
Both parties reported obligations were met to a large extent (mean
of 7 or more out of 10 in the survey) but both parties thought they
themselves did better than the other.
Training obligations were met better than employment obligations
(mean of 7.7 against 7.0 in the survey). There was a significant
difference between employers and apprentices about how far
employers had met the employment obligations of ‘provide adequate
training’,
Pastoral care emerged as a factor in the qualitative research but not in
the survey.
Training issues
In the survey, the responsibility for training was not
attributed specifically to employers or to training providers.
 ‘Specific time for training’ and ‘a range of training methods’
(‘hard promises’) were not as well met as other
obligations. This was agreed by employers and apprentices
alike
 Similarly ‘opportunity to apply what is learned’, exposure to
different experiences’ and ‘opportunity to keep learning’
(‘soft’ promises) were less well met than the average.
 Apprentices thought that ‘learning from mistakes’ and the
‘opportunity to keep learning’ were more important than
employers did.

Employment issues
The survey showed that ‘fair treatment’ and ‘resources
to do the job’ were the least-well-met obligations, in the
view of apprentices.
 Apprentices valued a cluster of items around ‘employer
loyalty’ less than employers did.
 Apprentices appreciated higher-than-normal pay rates
because they indicated their value to the employer.
 In the case studies, larger companies had difficulty
making sure that supervisors ‘delivered’ on the
obligations.
 In some cases the training provider took quite a large
amount of responsibility on employment matters.

Specific groups





Older apprentices/trainees (25+) felt their expectations were
met to a lower extent than younger apprentices/trainees. Apprentice
management systems may be set up disproportionately to cater for
young people.
Trainees tended to be less satisfied than apprentices
(except for GTO-employed trainees), especially on ‘specific time for
training’.
Assessment is perceived to be addressed less well in
apprenticeships than traineeships
Industry groups: manufacturing apprentices were least satisfied
among traditional apprentices with the extent to which training
obligations were met’; hospitality were the most satisfied.
By industry area and type, retail trainees were the happiest of
all, with high expectations of training, which were well met.
The effect of pre-apprenticeships

In Australia, off-the-job pre-apprenticeship courses of 3-6 months are available in
some traditional craft and manufacturing trades.

About a fifth of the survey sample had done a pre-apprenticeship.

Ex-pre-apps had slightly lower expectations of their employer and of their
training, and slightly higher expectations of their own obligations;

Ex-pre-apps’ training expectations were on the whole met slightly better
than other apprentices’;

On individual survey items, ex-pre-apps expected and reported less support
with personal problems and less likelihood of ‘a job they liked’, than other
apprentices;

Ex-pre-apps perceived a greater obligation to complete their apprenticeship,
but less of an obligation to stay with their employer after completion;

Case study findings supported these survey results.

While all these differences were slight, the findings suggest that preapprenticeships may be successful in managing expectations and of increasing preapps’ awareness of their own obligations.
The effect of Group Training Organisations
GTO-employed apprentices had lower expectations than directlyemployed apprentices and were much more satisfied with the
extent to which employers met their employment and training
obligations.
 Most GTO apprentices (two-thirds) thought that the employment
and training obligations were shared equally by the GTO and
host employer.
 The case studies showed that a lot of GTO work focuses on
managing expectations, on both sides;
 GTOs’ expertise with apprentices and trainees gives them a
great advantage over direct employers who may only recruit
occasionally


(90% of direct employers recruited five or fewer p.a.; while half of employers
of apprentices had done an apprenticeship, only one-fifth of employers of
trainees had done a traineeship);
Interdependent relationships
Media
State Training Authorities
Schools
Families
Company/Organisation
Registered Training
Organisation
Apprentice
Trainee
Group Training Organisation
Government Policies
Australian Apprenticeship
Centre
Friends
Good practices







Explicit acknowledgement of the mutual expectations, and
constant re-iteration during advertising, recruitment, induction and
performance management;
Structured early intervention programs;
Rewards and recognition to improve motivation;
A fall-back position where someone can keep a job but abandon
the apprenticeship;
Setting aside identifiable specific times and locations for
training, rather than relying heavily on on-the-job training;
‘Behind the scenes’ work between employers and intermediary
bodies where appropriate. ie expectations among these groups
(sometimes written down). These could be made explicit to
apprentices and trainees;
Field officers, either in GTOs or in larger companies.
Any questions?
Erica Smith 03-5327 9665
e.smith@ballarat.edu.au